Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

It is very sad reading such a political (and economical also) non-sense by a prestigious economist. It is not even an original set of ideas, being it largely adopted by the Eurosceptical of any sort.
Unfortunately a serious lack of understanding still resides in the common British wisdom about European Union and Eurozone: they are considered sort of financial club and those no more able to pay the yearly fee are, at the end of the day, inevitably dismissed.
In such an environment UK is offered as a sea light of stability.
Almost ridiculous given the possibility of UK being a failing state, due to the Scottish tendency to secede, the Welsh desire for more autonomy and the Northern Ireland civil war.
Regardless of the current troubles, the deep political meaning of the European project cannot be just neglected, as usually Britons do, and it will spare any of the (just naïve or even criminal?) dark forecasts by Prof. Skydelsky.

When a thing isn't working, it's time to quit. Whether it's a marriage or a political union there comes a time to say a respectful 'goodbye'.

And it appears, howevermuch joining the EU has propelled the UK economy (or not) the social cost of millions of eastern Europeans and Levant refugees into the UK is higher than the Brit citizenry appears comfortable with.

The raison d'être for the creation of the EU is quite wonderful, inspired even. But there can be a difference between the theory of a thing and what has actually occurred.

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." -- Sir Winston S. Churchill

Scary statistics have been trotted out in order to push Brit citizens into voting to stay in the EU, but when analyzed turn out to be speculative, at best.

It looks like the EU project is in trouble. I wish them well, and I hope they do solve all of their problems.

In the meantime, the UK must do what is best for the UK. And in my humble opinion it is to get out now and not only that, but invite the Scandinavian countries to join The Commonwealth and increase economic and social integration with those sovereign northern European nations. (They're gone anyways, as far as EU membership is concerned, as soon as the first poignant opportunity appears that meets optics standards, they will quit the EU)

If the UK, the Scandinavian countries and Ireland form a loose economic and social cooperative union -- or at the very least are all members of a re-energized Commonwealth -- that will have immediate positive economic and social effect, without the downsides that come with EU membership.

Without wishing any harm to the EU, without the northern European nations to complicate things, they can better concentrate on southern European issues with only two major powers involved, Germany and France.

I wouldn't rule out a future bid to accede to the EU once things have stabilized there. But for now, northern Europe can do better on it's own likely joined at The Commonwealth level at first, and possibly stronger ties later.

There are as many arguments for as against - and the democratic way to decide is what Cameron correctly is doing.
Britain had voted in 1973 to join only the EEC - since that morphed into EU, revalidation was warranted.
Brexit indeed has been touted as the way - along with Grexit etc - to force the reformation, that eludes Europe.
Given its potential cataclysmic consequences, sagacity is counseled by several wise men.
Meltdown is perhaps too dangerous - and hence, NET NET it is judgment.
And almost every senior statesman has advocated Bremain.
Up to the people to decide - and people always vote for self interest.
Even if the mood is to exit, it perhaps should be calibrated and phased.
With alternatives in place - gambling away of national prosperity/security is not an option.

But, I was more than amused by the geographical alternative you proposed - I liked it.
The Scandinavians plus the Dutch n the Swiss seem to be well synchronized with The Anglosphere.

My idea is similar to yours - The Anglosphere enhanced.
But on Europe - peace n prosperity of 70 years must not be thrown away.
Perhaps the best balance was the EEC - no longer on offer.
But to achieve individual ideas, meltdown methodology is dangerous.
Change to be brought from within.
As an Anglophile, I like Canada with USA/Nafta, Australia with APEC, Britain with Europe.
Mutually exclusive memberships can be eschewed in favor of matrix memberships.
I think the futility of the path that the EU has chosen - is better attacked and reformed from within.
Democratically. Without being forced into a Federal option - European DNA is not monolithic, like India.
Better to recognise the cards God gave to Europe, and play the hand given.

I'm just going to read back to you, some of your own comments from April 15th:

"Reformed Europe does not happen because Brussels/Headquarters does not face the consequences of its incompetence."

"The migration consequences are transferred to The Britains."

"Innumerable suggestion and efforts in vain, will have no bearing unless pain is inflicted on the Headquarters."

"When Headquarters of the Financial System is moved to those inflicted with the heavy lifting - The Britains and The Greeces."

"Unless the British choose the "nuclear option" of Brexit - which is another way that triggers reforms."

In effect Jagjeet, you're making a similar argument to mine. That in order *to trigger the necessary reforms in the EU* a Brexit must occur (and possibly a Grexit) *which would also provide immigration respite for the UK* forced on it by EU socio-economic failure.

It seems that northern European problems are similar among them (check the newspaper headlines) and they have *much more to gain* by closer association with each other, than by closer association with the southern European problems.

If you don't like the idea I've proposed, what is your idea, especially as you seem to make a similar argument for Brexit?

@JBS
Hello John
What an ingenious geographical alternative !
THE NEW ANGLOSPHERE.
The litmus test - if 66 % of any EU /NATO Nation can make conversations in English, they should be eligible to join.
Perhaps all of the EFTA will qualify.

Robert, you would be the first to point out that nowhere in your article is a case made for Britain as the 'bridge', except in the title. The article documents the "Tinkerbell" design of the EU blended with the
Marxian 'synthesis' into a fully functioning machine with a well oiled financial base. This is reminiscent
of Evelyn Waugh's novel ' Put Out More Flags' !
That you wrote this with tounge in cheek, I accept.

Free trade in Europe is good For who not the truly massive number unemployed youth in the EU or the workers with lethally depressed wages due to the growing immigrant sub class. And how free market is it when unelected eurocrats make the rules?

The EU has become a bastion of neo-liberal policies. This incredibly bad system rules the roost right across the world, but only in the EU is it destroying nation states. Take Greece. The Troika are only interested in enacting a reign of destruction on the citizens. They can only fight back by leaving the union. They will eventually do that.
Britain should stay out of the way. It's going to be messy. Schauble ,the IMF, World Bank and other neo-liberal raiders need to be uprooted and allowed to die. Luckily the Uk retains most of its monetary sovereignty, but is still partly hamstrung by the Lisbon Treaty.
IMO, this sovereignty is THE reason the referendum should be addressing. Unfortunately the politicians in Britain are all neo-liberal. So they haven't bee able to see what was the right question

A northern single-currency area including Germany and France would change nothing at all. In that case, Greece could stay as well - it would make no difference. Both France and Greece cannot regain competitiveness with Germany in the same currency. Greece needs to devalue at least 50%, France at least 20%. It is quantitatively impossible for the German taxpayer to absorb divergences of these dimensions - let alone that the German taxpayer was never asked about it (quite the contrary: transfer payments were excluded by law). And you just have to watch Place de la République to recognize that any structural reforms are impossible in France. So, Frexit is the only solution. Grexit in the same manner.

Regarding Britain as protector for Club Med - this seems rather strange to my ears. You would rather link it with countries like Norway or Switzerland - and think of the old EFTA connections.

Non democratic processes are doomed to fail in true democratic countries, at least that's what I hope.

They have built the EU based on lies and misconceptions under the pretext of the common good, we now see that there is no European ideal, except for individual gain, so its time to break it up and build a true democratic integration.

Start with a constitution, not a treaty, if we all can't agree on the terms, there is no reason to pursue the dream of a united Europe.

Britains future will best be served in conjunction with a revived British Commonwealth of nations. The era we are entering, is inclined to nationalist sentiment as well as economic expediency and these factors have to be taken into account dispite our unwillingness to acknowledge them.An ethnically mix entity sharing a common culture is the most viable economic union Britain can belong to. The nations of the Iberian Peninsula will likely embrace their former colonies in Latin America as well , while France will likely returning to French Indo China.Thereby leaving a German Polish core to the EU.

Robert Skidelsky believes Britain should remain in the EU and "act as a bridge for a divided Europe." He sees a role for this country "in the two Europes of the future," instead of "cutting itself off from the one Europe that currently exists." According to the author there may be a breakup of the Eurozone "into more compatible parts" - with "a northern single-currency area," dominated by France and Germany, and a "southern area," which would be "linked by free trade," but "not subject to the northern bloc’s monetary and fiscal rules." He says Britain would fit in this "southern bloc," whose members "would have fixed, but adjustable, exchange rates with one another and with the northern union." But they also "would lack a member with the weight and prestige to counterbalance Germany" and could see in Britain as their appropriate bridge-builder. Unfortunately Eurosceptics would rather use their resources for building their post-EU Britain, free from - in their eyes - the shackles of EU dictates.
Ties between Britain and Europe have never been warm, and their relationship has long been rocky, allowing politicians to create divisive, emotive issues for party interests. The weight of history plays also a role in how Britons view Europe with scepticism and suspicion. France was their traditional enemy until Napoleon was defeated. Alliance was formed between the two to fight Germany during the First and Second World Wars. All the while Britain was a global empire, competing with France and Germany, which also vied for trade and influence overseas.
The post-war Britain stood on the sidelines when France and Germany - war-weary - opted for a structure that would allow Europe to thrive in peace, safety and freedom, an idea also supported by Winston Churchill. Based on Churchill's "United States of Europe" the European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951. Britain declined an invitation to join the six founding nations of the European Economic Community (EEC) in signing the Treaty of Rome in 1957. However it had decided to become a fully-fledged member, together with Ireland and Denmark., bringing the total number of member states to nine. That Britain "joined late" because its economy was in decline and Edward Heath was optimistic that Britain's EEC membership would bring prosperity to the country. There was a sense of euphoria, as celebrations were held in the city and revellers took part in a torch lit procession.
Today, motivated by self-interest, Eurosceptics in Britain have chosen the worst moment to hold their referendum. Riding on a wave of economic recovery they say the EU grapples with economic anaemia in the Eurozone, is powerless to handle the refugee crisis and unable to "defend its frontiers against terrorists." They want to turn their back on the crisis-stricken Europe, seeing the EU project as a failure.
Eurosceptics are confident that Britain will regain its strength after Brexit. There is still a popular perception that Britain did best, standing alone, and if necessary to rely on its best friend and natural ally, the United States to come to its rescue, as it was the case during World War II to fight Nazi Germany. But neither China nor the US are amused to see this in/out referendum. Eurosceptics shouldn't be overconfident that they would be in a better position to forge better trade deals with the US and China. Washington has warned Britain that it would face tariffs and trade barriers, as a non-EU member, like China, Brazil or India in the event of Brexit. Xi Jinping expressed his hope that Britain would remain in the EU during his state visit last October, because he also fears turbulences in the global economy if the EU breaks up.

The US didn't rescue us from the Nazis. By the time the US joined the war, leaving aside the Battle of Britain, the Third Reich had already doomed itself by its invasion of Russia (where 80% of German soldiers would perish).
As for Britain's joining the EEC -- it was specifically sold to us as a "common market" and not a political union. Even so, Parliament voted to join by the narrowest of margins.
As for the Americans, Chinese and all the rest: 1) they're going to support Britain remaining in the EU because that is the position of HM government. It would be a serious breach of diplomatic protocol to state otherwise. 2) Once we leave -- as we will, as the British population will never consent to political unification with the Continent -- it will be accepted as fait accompli and everyone will move on.
No-one gives a damn nowadays that Greenland left. Nor in the future will they that the UK left. International relations doesn't work that way. Never have.

The conclusion 'but only by ...' is historically and currently incorrect. There are many ways that lead to Rome. The 'but only .. ' argument is used in many forms to instill fear of Brexit, and all of these arguments are patently false. What happens after a Brexit depends on how the UK and other countries react in the decades to come. Since this is a historic process there is no way to predict what will happen and many possible pathways exist.

And what kind of bridge would Britain be. In it's politics and outlook it very much belongs in the northern camp, and not with the V5 or the poor south. In fact the whole point of a Brexit is to stop the immigration from those countries and divorce itself form them. Post WWII Britain may have felt as a bridge between the US and Europe but those days are long gone, too. British politics itself is the main dividing force in Europe. For Britain to be the bridge for a divided Europe it would have to un-divide itself, but even it the referendum were to fail the drive to separate will continue. This whole notion of perceiving itself as a "bridge" is just a desperate attempt to view itself in a constructive light to appease it's conscience to the profound negativity that permeates the whole subject and that typifies it's entire approach to Europe.

The EU's institutions lack legitimacy because they are populated by unelected bureaucrats answerable to no one but their patrons at home. How is this not the biggest issue in the debate in a country that literally gave birth to modern democratic government and spread this notion around the world?

As Yanis Varoufakis commented about the Euro - You can check out but never leave- just like in the song Hotel California

The South or the North will ultimately have to leave the EZ. Germany will not rush as it is a beneficary and holds Southern debt. For the South to leave they have to settle their debts so will not rush. So it has to get really messy. For the UK to be the meat in that particular sandwich is not an enticing proposition and it is doubtful there is any legal basis for involvement. How the Acropolis Apocalypse Part 2, The Rerurn of the Mummy procedes should give some insight

We are 12.5% of the EU's population. We have a 4% say in the Commissioners. Will shortly have a 2% (UK Entry rates) into the EU Civil Service - all those busy little bees in the Berlaymont building who unlike in an actual democracy actually write our laws. We cannot block the Council of ministers even if every non-eurozone country votes with us. We are the second worst represented per head of population in the Parliament (even before you consider a) It is not actually a democratic parliament but rather a rubber stamp & b)our main political parties are not in either of the two main political blocks - and nor will they ever be as both believe in a Supranational Technocracy rather than nation state democracy).

"That member could only be Britain". Dead wrong - that member can never be Britain. The deck is stacked. The entire edifice is irreformable.

As I mentioned on another post, they didn't listen about the Euro, Shengen, Open Borders, the belief that artificial constructs of disparate peoples with nothing in common save Geography and vaguely similar religions. Sorry this is argumentum ad misericordiam. I personally intend to walk from the whole rotten edifice. And it looks like I just might be in the majority.

Reformed Europe does not happen because Brussels/Headquarters does not face the consequences of its incompetence.
The economic consequences are grotesquely borne by The Greeces.
The migration consequences are transferred to The Britains.

Innumerable suggestion and efforts in vain, will have no bearing unless pain is inflicted on the Headquarters.
The Headquarters will not vote for its liquidation - those who bear the consequences alone can bring reforms.
Only when those in charge have to face the music - will reformed Europe materialize.

When Headquarters of the Financial System is moved to those inflicted with the heavy lifting - The Britains and The Greeces.
Europe's Financial Headquarters must be moved - where Europeans are migrating to : Choice # 1 always Britain.
Unless the British choose the "nuclear option" of Brexit - which is another way that triggers reforms.

One can only muse that if the EU and all it's associated parts are as dysfunctional as they appear to be that it may be caused by the attempt to put too many square pegs in round holes. Although it would seem an economic union with some demonstrable benefits would be the easier thing to accomplish, the political union without easily demonstrated benefit would be much harder. Money can be similar but political beliefs not so much. Perhaps the EU just tried to do too much too soon.
That lack of cohesion, and an impenetrable bureaucracy that is lacking in authority and vision, has lead to the present state we find ourselves in.

Despite my own personal annoyance at the present stagnation we find ourselves in, I can't help but think that to try to go it alone would be worse. We should not be talking about exit, fleeing like schoolboys taking our ball and leaving the game when things don't suit us, but using our resources and our clout if necessary to force beneficial changes where we can. We can still be politically independent and enjoy considerable economic benefits by staying in.

This article includes a lot of wishful thinking and one should never contemplate such scenarios. If the British people do vote to exit the EU, this shall be the wake-up call for the EU to “Reform”. If however, the Brits vote to stay in the EU they would have lost a golden opportunity to help the EU to reform and for the UK to be an influential part in this reform process. And the writer is quite right, there are no guarantees that this UK government shall honour the wish of the electorate (the result of the referendum shall not be legally binding), and there are numerous examples such as Denmark, Greece, etc. where the electorate said something and their political elite did the exact opposite. Therefore, a strong vote for Brexit, shall give D. Cameron the ammunition to be a leading authority in reforming the EU something that he will otherwise not have or be able to do. At the end of the day, David Cameron has the authority and the British people shall give him the choice.

Michael,
For the benefit of the readers, below is the legal argument, to confirm the writer of this article and my 1st comment herein:
“There are two types of referendum that have been held by the UK Government, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of ‘No' for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.
Legally, Parliament at any point in the future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation. However, reversing legislation approved by referendum would be likely to be controversial.
Finally, under the Local Government Act 1972, there is a provision under which non-binding local referendums on any issue can be called by small groups of voters. This power exists only for parish councils, and not larger authorities, and is commonly known as the "Parish Poll". Six local voters may call a meeting, and if ten voters or a third of the meeting (whichever is smaller) agree, the council must carry out a referendum in 14–25 days. The referendum is merely advisory, but if there is a substantial majority and the results are well-publicised, it may be influential.”

Nonsense. If the British vote to leave, Britain will leave. Any suggestion that this referendum is just a tool to give D Cameron with which to beat the EU is wilful and deliberate obfuscation, intended to encourage the population to Brexit, because it won't really happen. Pull the other one.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.